Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs études font état de la popularité croissante des jeux de hasard et d’argent mais peu d’entre elles ont été effectuées sur un des jeux les plus populaires du Québec, le bingo. La présente étude, réalisée auprès de 96 joueurs de bingo, précise les relations entre la superstition et les habitudes de jeu (la tendance à participer à d’autres jeux de hasard et d’argent, la fréquence de participation et la somme d’argent misée). Les hypothèses stipulent que le montant d’argent misé, la fréquence de participation et la tendance à jouer à d’autres jeux que le bingo sont liées à la superstition. Les analyses indiquent des liens positifs significatifs entre la superstition et la fréquence de participation, les habitudes de jeu, et le lieu de contrôle. Cependant, on ne retrouve pas de corrélation significative entre la superstition et le montant d’argent misé. La discussion soulève les implications théoriques et cliniques de ces résultats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".